Re: Lenny's Counter Argument

On Jan 28, 3:27 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 12:08 pm, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

What observation or measurement could test *your* "theory" that "at
least human level intelligence", possibly using supernatural methods
is required?

The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID
mechanism doing the job.

of course, such a statement is one of blatant and stupdendous idiocy

no theory in science sits around on its fat ass waiting for other
theories to die so it's the last one standing

if sean had an INKLING of how science actually worked, he'd be digging
up evidence FOR creationism instead of AGAINST evolution.

but for him it's the only game in town. ANOTHER reason why he's wrong.

Do any of our creationist readers think that Sean's "theory" is valid
as science? If so, perhaps *you* can explain why he does not even try
to get it published.

Someday I might publish - though publishing something so fundamentally
counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely
unlikely to get past the vetters.

blah blah blah. tell it einstein. your problem is you think an OLD
idea is a NEW one. hell even the moron who founded your ridiculous
little church believed in your magical houdini approach to science and
she lived over 100 years ago.

so this idea that your poor, persecuted little theory is SO
revolutionary is like saying the outhouse will replace the flush
toilet but no one will listen because the outhouse is a new invention.


 Certainly no one here would
published something along these lines regardless of how good of a
paper it might be.

In any case, until then, what do you have as anything remotely
resembling a reasonable counter?  Do you really need an argument to be
"published" before you can recognize it as valid or invalid? - before
you can even try to come up with a reasonable argument against it?


yeah the reasonable argument is that your idea has always been wrong

how many arguments do you need?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin
    ... Science is. ... the formal publication. ... As to the journal publishing it, ... Another possible reason for delay was that something was ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin
    ... Science is. ... the formal publication. ... As to the journal publishing it, ... Another possible reason for delay was that something was ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin
    ... Science is. ... the formal publication. ... As to the journal publishing it, ... Another possible reason for delay was that something was ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: OT: sea level rise hmmmmm....
    ... You are a continuing example of why scientists work to ... good reason, I believe. ... when wondering about questions posed by web pages on science. ... but to be honest I am not really interested in AGW issues. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: sea level rise hmmmmm....
    ... For good reason, I believe. ... there have been too many cases of data finagling when it comes to AGW. ... Such as the hockey stick which is now gradually vanishing even from some IPCC reports. ... In science it leads to people like me not believing them anymore. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
Loading